ISIS is recruiting young Muslims from around the globe to Jihad, and the White House apparently doesn’t understand why

How can the Obama Administration miss the obvious? Part of the answer lies in the groups “partnering” with, or advising, the White House on these issues. Groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council or the Islamic Society of North America insist that there should be no more focus at the Summit on radical Islam than on any other violent movements, even as radical Islamic movements continue to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

Amplifying a poor choice of Muslim outreach partners, however, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued in recent days that economic grievances, a lack of opportunities, and countries with “bad governance” are to blame for the success of groups such as ISIS in recruiting Muslims to their cause. Yet, if this were true, why do so many young Muslims who live in societies with excellent governance—Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States—either join ISIS or engage in Jihadist violence in their own countries? Why do young Muslims with promising professional futures embark on the path of Jihad?

Neither the Summit partners nor the U.S. Administration can effectively answer these questions.

Both Denmark and the Netherlands have “good governance.” Denmark and the Netherlands not only offer free health insurance but also free housing to Muslim refugees, along with high-quality education for their children. This should produce an outpouring of gratitude by young Muslims towards the host society, and no Jihadists.

Yet there are dozens of Jihadists hailing from the Netherlands and a recent attack in Copenhagen was committed by a man who was raised in Denmark and had effectively enjoyed years of Danish hospitality.

The question is not limited to Europe. Minnesota, for instance, is hardly a state with “bad governance.” Minnesota offers ample opportunity for immigrants willing to work hard. Yet more than a dozen young men from the Twin Cities area have joined the Jihadist movement in recent years.

How can Barack Obama or John Kerry explain this? Based on President Obama’s public statements and John Kerry’s analysis in The Wall Street Journal, they cannot.

It is worth remembering Aafia Siddiqui, the M.I.T.-educated neuroscientist who could have enjoyed a prestigious and lucrative career in the bio-tech industry but instead chose to embrace radical Islam, eventually becoming known as “Lady Al-Qaida.”

Or think of the three Khan siblings who recently sought to leave Chicago in order to go live in Syria under the rule of ISIS. The Khan sister, intelligent and studious, had planned to become a physician. The siblings were intercepted before they could fly out of the country, and prosecutors argue they wanted to join armed Jihad. Defense attorneys have a different explanation, stating the siblings desperately wanted to live under a society ruled by Shariah law—under the rule of Allah’s laws, without necessarily wanting to commit acts of violence.

It is this motivation—the sincere desire to live under Islamic religious laws, and the concomitant willingness to use violence to defend the land of Islam and expand it—that has led thousands of Western Muslims, many of them young and intelligent—and not the oft-described “losers”—to leave a comfortable professional and economic future in the West in order to join ISIS under gritty circumstances.

In its general strategy, the U.S. Administration confounds two things. It is true that in “failed states” criminal networks, cartels, and terrorist groups can operate with impunity. Strengthening central governments will reduce safe havens for terror networks. Secretary Kerry’s argument in The Wall Street Journal is different, however, namely: If we improve governance in countries with “bad governance,” then fewer young people will become “violent extremists.” That’s a different argument and not a plausible one. In fact, it’s a really unpersuasive argument. Muslims leave bright, promising futures to join ISIS out of a sense of sincere religious devotion, the wish to live under the laws of Allah instead of the laws of men.

In reading Kerry’s piece, I am glad that in the late 1940s the U.S. had people such as George Kennan employed in its service to see the Communist threat clearly and describe it clearly. But where is today’s Kennan in this administration? Who in the U.S. government is willing to describe the threat of radical Islam without fear of causing offense to several aggressive Islamic lobby groups?

American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam’s politicized and aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam’s spiritual and ascetic period in Mecca).

How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the founder of the AHA Foundation and the author of Infidel, Nomad, and the forthcoming Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation, to be published next spring.

You may understandably think of it as an ISIS jobs fair, but the ongoing confab in Washington is officially known as President Obama’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism.” That being the case, many Americans seem surprised at the appearance of Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). After all, the White House is having a public hissy fit over the upcoming speech to Congress by Obama’s bête noire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An odd time, one might think, for the POTUS to be so chummy with a Muslim activist best know for theorizing, right after the 9/11 attacks, that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.”

But National Review readers will not be surprised. Marayati and MPAC figured in my 2010 book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. operations – The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (“grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted verbatim from an internal Brotherhood memo that describes the Islamists’ objective to infiltrate and destroy our country). And three years ago, I profiled Marayati and MPAC in this NRO column.

There is a reason why Obama’s summit is striking all the wrong chords with the public: strangely sympathetic to Islamist sensibilities and grievances at the very time when rampaging jihadists, while quoting Islamic scripture, are barbarically slaughtering their enemies and conducting a pogrom against Christians (there being no Jews left to mass-murder in Syria, Iraq and Libya).

The reason is that the summit serves exactly the same purpose as is served by MPAC and Marayati: It is the nexus between Islamists and Leftists.

For the Left, radical Islamic terrorism cannot be called “radical Islamic terrorism”; it must be called “violent extremism,” to avoid offending the Left’s Islamist allies. Still, while the labeling of terrorism may be problematic, the fact of terrorism is an opportunity – a crisis that, like all crises, can be used to advance the “social justice” agenda.

Just have a look at President Obama’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week. ISIS and al-Qaeda are on the march, so what does the president suppose this is the occasion for? “Our focus [in the “summit on countering violent extremism”] will be on empowering local communities.”

The public is worried about our national security because, after six years of Obama, jihadists have more safe-haven than ever to plot and train for attacks against America, Israel and Western Europe. Obama, however, sees the situation as grist for a large-scale exercise in community-organizing: A summit that gathers “governments, civil society groups, and community leaders from more than 60 nations” to address “the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them no chance of improving their lives.” By the president’s lights, what causes terrorism is not sharia supremacist ideology, something that is not to be discussed. Instead, “anger” over “legitimate grievances” — that always turn out to be the same grievances the Left grieves over – makes young Muslims vulnerable to “exploitation” by al Qaeda and ISIS.

For their part, Islamists share the Left’s affinity for muscular government that suffocates individual liberty. They are also anxious to gull Westerners into seeing their grievances as driven by wayward American policies rather than sharia principles. That makes an alliance with the Left a good fit – notwithstanding important differences on such matters as abortion and the rights of women and homosexuals (differences that allies can set aside when defeating a common opponent is the higher objective).

Even in Washington D.C., there’s sometimes at least one person willing to attend an international summit and speak plainly. In the case of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit promoted by President Barack Obama, the common sense came express-delivered from our allies to the North. In his public announcement, Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honorable Steven Blaney said:

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. Individuals returning home after travelling abroad to take part in terrorist activities present a serious security threat to Canada with newly-acquired abilities to carry out domestic attacks, as well as to recruit and radicalize others. As we all have seen, Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents. That is why our Government has put forward measures that protect Canadians against all forms of terrorism.

Unlike the President who is at pains to explain in convoluted terms how “we are not at war with Islam”, and how ISIS and its fellow travelers are “perverting” their religion (something that IS leader and so-called Caliph AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi, a doctor in Islamic Studies, appears to disagrees with) labeling the threat as the International Jihadist Movement, as Min. Blaney did, speaks volumes. While some have portrayed this merely as a fight over semantics, the phrase “Global Jihadist Movement” is pregnant with vital information that is intentionally obscured by the phrase “violent extremism.” Min. Blaney’s simple identification of the threat tell us that:

1. The threat is global: Unlike President Obama, whose Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS seeks to limit U.S. options to just Iraq and Syria, we must recognize the global element of the threat is vital. Jihadists from Somalia to France and from Mali to Norway are all looking to harm the U.S. and their allies wherever they can. Unless our response is equally global, it can not succeed.

2. The threat is jihad: Our enemies say they are called to wage jihad, a term which is defined by Islamic law. Reliance of the Traveller (a reputable book of Shafi’i Islamic law) establishes that, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” That many individuals who identify as Muslim may not subscribe to this doctrinal requirement is a positive, but nonetheless the preference of individuals does impede the significance of a doctrinal requirement that motivates a large segment of a population..

3. The threat is a movement. It is not merely ISIS which has declared war against us and must be combated. Rather our fight is with all those who subscribe to the movement’s ideology which obliges them to wage war in order to “establish the religion.” Individual groups and leaders may morph, change or evolve, but the ideological heart of the movement remains the same, and until that is addressed, we will not prove victorious. And as a movement, those responsible for spreading and indoctrinating the ideology are as important (if not more so) than the frontline jihadists who engage in fighting or acts of terror.

While Canada has initiated raids targeting groups linked to indoctrination and jihad, the Obama Administration and it’s Countering Violent Extremism effort continues to conduct outreach with them. This was most notable in the case of the Islamic Society of Boston, a mosque founded by a convicted AL Qaeda financier and Muslim Brother, which has been linked to a dozen individuals with terror ties, ranging from the chief jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Al Qaradawi, to the Boston Marathon bombers, to a major Pakistani terror leader whose brother orchestrated the Mumbai massacre. And yet Boston was one of the cities cited as a model for the rest of the country by the CVE summit.

As Canada’s government is considering the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015, seeking to target those who conducted indoctrination, propaganda and support for terrorism, the President’s outreach partners, like Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslims Public Affairs Council, are looking for ways to hamper policing efforts, such as preventing law enforcement from using informants and targeting terror recruiters in mosques.

The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The White House has still refused to name the “American Muslim leaders” with whom President Obama met to “discuss a range of domestic and foreign policy issues.”

According to a White House statement on the President’s meeting, the domestic issues discussed were the “Affordable Care Act, anti-Muslim violence and discrimination, the 21st Century Policing Task Force, and the upcoming White House Summit on Countering Violence Extremism.” On the foreign policy front, “the President discussed the need to continue countering ISIL and other groups that commit horrific acts of violence, purportedly in the name of Islam,” while also congratulating Muslims on their “remarkable contributions” to America.

Breitbart News has uncovered the names of four of the American Muslim leaders in attendance.

Comedian and left-wing pundit Dean Obeidallah revealed that he was one of the fifteen Muslim-American “leaders” brought to the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

“The No.1 issue raised: The alarming rise in anti-Muslim bigotry in America,” Obeidallah said of the meeting with the President. Their chief collective concern was not the rise of the Sunni Islamic State, nor the expansion of the Caliphatist Shiite Iranian regime and its messianic drive towards nuclear weapons, but instead, “anti-Muslim bigotry in America.”

Also at the event was Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC was founded by members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written a position paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has also publicly entertained that Israel should be considered a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks against America. He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance,” according to Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Foundation.

Elshishtawy revealed that Dr. Sherman Jackson, who serves as the King Faisal Chair of Islamic Thought at the University of Southern California, was also at the meeting. One lecture Dr. Jackson gave has been described as a “call to battle” between Muslims and the West.

Obeidallah also revealed that Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, was behind the effort to get Muslim leaders to the White House.

Muslim Advocates reveals on its website that its three main objectives are to “end profiling,” “strengthen [Muslim] charities,” and “counter hate.” Its Press Center section is filled with posts demanding intelligence organizations, such as the New York Police Department and federal agencies, end their “Muslim Suspicionless Spying Program,” while also dictating to the media that it should “Report Accurately on Muslims.” Another post reads, “What You Need to Know About the New Federal Racial Profiling Policy.” Review of Muslim Advocates’ press releases reveals that the only foreign policy issue with which the group has concerned itself over the past year was urging Sec. of State John Kerry to ensureMuslim “Americans are able to safely perform the annual religious Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.”

Obeidallah does point out that Texas state Representative Molly White and others have made concerning remarks regarding the Muslim community. However, Obeidallah conflated anti-Muslim remarks with those criticizing Islam as a whole.

Hate crimes against Muslims remain a very small percentage of those that are religiously motivated. According to the latest FBI statistics, Muslims are victims of only 13.7 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes. American Jews remain almost five times more likelyto be victims of hate crimes than Muslims.

Bill O’Reilly hit the nail on the head in his opening monologue this evening, it was like as if he was reading our blog. Here is the opening monologue:

Then in his very next segment he invited on two stooges from the Council for Islamic Relations (CAIR) Hassam Ayloush and Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Towards the end of the segment the CAIR stooge Hassam Ayloush justifies his position by criticizing the USA for “supporting the military coup in Egypt” that in itself was inaccurate, as we all know Obama did the opposite, I digress, but Bill interrupts then challenges Ayloush about going “against the Muslim brotherhood?” Bill sadly shows how uninformed he is on CAIR and MPAC as we have, as have many other counter Jihad experts exposed both CAIR and MPAC as strongly connected with the Muslim Brotherhood. Click here for proof on CAIR and proof that MPAC was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood So how can Bill expect leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood attack their own people as “murderers,” this is beyond naive.

This is the main problem with all the main stream media, in that they really do not do their homework and they still have the element of political correctness that cannot get to the whole truth to properly inform the American public.

Bill seems to have come along way in his understanding of the problem of Islam but when he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood on his show and then condemns the Muslim Brotherhood to their face on air not realizing that they are Muslim Brotherhood, shows a level of ignorance that is sad and dangerous to eventually solving the problem of getting educated as to the realities of the apparent “moderate” Muslims who are actually more dangerous than the terrorists doing the killing as they undermine our defenses. The whole purpose of CAIR and MPAC is to tickle our ears and dumb down our thinking and finesse the real dangers we face. Bill knew they were BS-ing him, but he did not know that the organizations these people represent are the very people he unknowingly attacked.

Learn more about the stealth Jihad and the Muslim double talk and acquire the book the Case For Islamophobia, click here

The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.

The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.

The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:

A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.

When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”

An analysis of federal campaign contributions finds that key figures at six of America’s most prominent Islamist organizations have favored Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This trend began with multiple donations to Cynthia McKinney dated September 11, 2001, reversing a previous pattern that had seen Islamist officials spend slightly more on Republicans. Their preference for Democrats has solidified during the past 13 years and shows no signs of waning. What does this say about the politicians who benefit from Islamist largesse?

Islamist Watch[1], a project of the Middle East Forum[2], recently launched Islamist Money in Politics[3] (IMIP[3]), to monitor Islamists’ influence in the halls of power, inform the public about which politicians accept their tainted money, and hold accountable those who do. IMIP’s inaugural data release[4] focuses on the national organizations of six Islamist entities[5] — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR[6]), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA[7]), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA[8]), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA[9]), Muslim American Society (MAS[10]), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC[11]) — as well as CAIR’s many local chapters.

Names of important personnel[12], both current and former, were mined from the groups’ Internal Revenue Service filings and/or website listings, some going back more than a decade. The Federal Election Commission’s online database[13], which spans the late 1990s to the present, was then searched for donations to candidates, joint fundraising committees, relevant political action committees, and parties. IMIP employed biographical information to select only those contributions that could reasonably be attributed to the individuals of interest, rejecting ones likely to have been made by unrelated persons who share their names. See IMIP’s description of methodology[14] for details and a discussion of the challenges.

As of now, the IMIP database[3] tabulates nearly $700,000 in donations. Surely many more people and contributions remain to be added, but the data already constitute a large and representative sample that is sufficient for an initial pass at quantifying Islamists’ political affinities.

First, who contributes? Major donors tend to be board members rather than staffers. While many of the biggest contributors maintain relatively low public profiles, several are quite familiar. With outlays totaling $56,800, the most generous funder of politicians in IMIP’s database is Kenny Gamble[15], who goes by Luqman Abdul Haqq[16] in his position on MANA’s governing body. An Islamist-aligned music and real estate mogul[17], Gamble is tied to the “Islamic paramilitary boys group” known as the Jawala Scouts[18] and has been accused of working to build a self-contained “black Muslim enclave[19]” in South Philadelphia. Also among the top 20 donors are CAIR executive director Nihad Awad[20], who has contributed under numerous variants of his name; former MAS president and current CAIR national board member Esam Omeish[21], who resigned from a Virginia immigration panel[22] in 2007 after a video emerged of his speech touting the Palestinians’ embrace of “the jihad way” against Israel; and Zead Ramadan[23], the CAIR-New York board member who unsuccessfully ran for New York City Council[24] in 2013.

With regard to recipients, the Democratic Party[25] dominates. Leading the all-time list by vacuuming up close to one in every five dollars is Keith Ellison[26], the Islamist-leaning Muslim congressman[27] from Minnesota who has a long history of collaborating with Islamist groups. Barack Obama[28], whose policies have been popular with Islamists[29], comes in second when direct contributions are combined with those sent to joint fundraising committees associated with his 2008[30] and 2012[31] presidential campaigns. Third is Cynthia McKinney[32], the far-left former congresswoman[33] from Georgia who peddled conspiracy theories and harsh critiques of U.S. foreign policy in the wake of 9/11; that she ranks so high despite the fact that most donations to her were collected during a one-year, post-9/11 window testifies to Islamists’ endorsement of her adversarial stance at the outset of America’s military response to Islamic terrorism. Fourth is Indiana’s André Carson[34], the second Muslim congressman[35] to be elected; he told attendees[36] at the 2012 ICNA–MAS convention that educators should model American schools after Islamic madrassas. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee[37] rounds out the top five.

However, Democrats did not always prevail in the battle for Islamist cash. According to IMIP’s current data, Republicans[38] actually received about 15 percent more Islamist-related contributions than Democrats[25] did over the several years prior to 9/11. The Islamists’ favorite Republican of that period was Californian Tom Campbell[39], who contested a Senate seat in 2000. Campbell’s warm[40]relationships[41] with radical Muslims, such as terror operative Sami al-Arian[42], are thoroughly documented. Further, although IMIP features only a handful of entries from the 2000 presidential race, there is more money for George W. Bush[43] than for Al Gore[44]. This is not a surprise because Bush won the backing[45] of the American Muslim Political Coordination Committee, an Islamist-heavy coalition.

Having reached the sense that victory in Washington was near, the focus has began to shift to spreading these gains to state and local governments. First came the successful termination of the NYPD Intelligence program, which had previously been lauded around the country for its sophistication and success. Recently CAIR and its allies have repeatedly targeted Law Enforcement training programs conducted in more rural areas. In some places efforts to stop training efforts have succeeded, while in others, local law enforcement and local government officials have stuck to their guns.

Having had less than full compliance through the tactic of mere intimidation, additional pressure is now to be applied, utilizing the power of the Federal government. As previously reported, a coalition of radical left and Muslim Brotherhood aligned groups are attempting to end the use of informants in Mosques, and demanding a complete “re-education” of Federal, State, or Local law enforcement who receive the training that these groups oppose, training which often exposes their role in the North American Muslim Brotherhood, and the threat doctrine motivating Jihadist terrorism.

In an email newsletter from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a group with a long history of ties to the Brotherhood, MPAC applauded recent efforts by outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder to terminate national security exceptions to prohibitions against “Profiling” and applauded the new guidelines ability to keep Federal investigators out of mosques. But the goal now is to extend that prohibition to any local law enforcement officer. They’re receiving help in that quest from Democratic Senator Ben Cardin. MPAC wrote:

The new guidelines will also most likely not extend to local law enforcement agents; something Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) had been advocating for on Capitol Hill especially for those agencies that receive federal funding. Not extending the guidelines to local law enforcement would be counter to having the guidelines in the first place.

Cardin issued a press release October 3rd, calling for the adoption of his bill, “S.1038 – End Racial Profiling Act of 2013,” which seeks to extend federal guidelines nationwide. While the press release says Cardin, along with Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, was joined by “Muslim community leaders” it declines to mention which ones. Christian church groups and African American organizations are named. So far S.1038 has received sixteen co-sponsors, all Democrats.

No one, least of all those of us seeking the application of proven and common sense counterterrorism strategies, support “profiling” based solely upon a perceived race or ethnicity. But it is the desire of groups like CAIR and MPAC to warp a desire for fairness and tolerance into insisting upon the suppression of knowable facts, prohibiting law enforcement from building profiles based on behaviors associated with the established doctrine of an enemy that seeks to terrorize us.

Aware of this break between what they see occurring with their own eyes and what the government is telling them, more Americans are expressing a lack of confidence in the ability of their leaders to address key national security issues like terrorism. In a poll taken by the Center for Security Policy, and conducted by The Polling Company/WomenTrend,71% felt that not enough was being done to address security concerns, including terrorism. A similar amount, 74% understood Jihad (a term which has been largely excised from federal counterterrorism training), to represent a “violent holy war against unbelievers of Islam.”

This disconnect between a priority based on politically correct pieties, as expressed by the Senators, and trumpeted by MPAC, and the actual desires of the American people, shows that while many in Washington may have buckled to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, in the heartland of America there’s a growing realization of the threat. If there is to be a revival of realistic training and analysis, it is likely to be at the state and local level.

The New York Post’s Paul Sperry reported Sunday that the media director of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) maybe a former Boston resident named Ahmad Abousamra. Abousamra was an attendee at the same infamous Boston-area mosque that played host to Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Not only that but Abousamra’s father, was a board member at the mosque, according to Sperry.

The Islamic Society of Boston, founded by self-identified Muslim Brother and convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdulrahman Alamoudi featured Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, famous for authorizing the use of Hamas suicide bombings and the killing of American civilians in Iraq, as a trustee. Other terrorist alum from ISB include Tarek Mehenna, a long time friend of Abousamra, and “Lady Al Qaeda” Aafia Siddiqui, whose release ISIS demanded as part of their negotiations over the fate of executed American journalist James Foley.

The ISB mosque was the same one that U.S. Representative from Texas Louie Gohmert questioned then FBI director Robert Mueller over in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, which led Mueller to admit that while he was unaware that the elder Tsarnaev attended the mosque, the FBI had done “outreach” there.

This preference for outreach to, rather than investigation of, groups (and mosques) associated with the Muslim Brotherhood will only worsen if efforts to hamper U.S. government’s use of informants in and around mosques are successful. This campaign, called the Safe Spaces Initiative, is led by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, but has received assistance from a wide variety of Islamic and left-wing organizations, including Human Right’s Watch (HRW). HRW recently launched a major campaign to prohibit the use of informants in tandem to the MPAC effort. The HRW’s poster boy for that campaign was convicted terrorist James Cromitie, who was the center of a terrorist plot given a recent whitewashing by the HBO documentary “The Newburgh Sting.” As CSP has documented elsewhere, Cromitie was a man committed to the doctrine of shariah, who desired to engage in jihad. The fact that defense allegations of entrapment were demolished by a court has not stopped HRW from attempting to re-characterize the case as one of FBI malfeasance. Like the false allegations of illegal surveillance of Muslim suspects, these campaigns seek to use public opinion to force law enforcement and national security officials from engaging in the necessary, and legally authorized, work of protecting the country.

How many Abousamaras, Mehennas, Tsarnaevs, and Siddiquis are out there, who will not be uncovered until it is to late because the hands of law enforcement have been tied to a failed strategy of outreach?

Here yet again we see Muslims condemning an act of jihad terrorism — in this case, the murder of James Foley by jihadis of the Islamic State — without addressing the Qur’anic case justifying the atrocity. Consequently, it is hard to see how any member or supporter of the Islamic State could watch this video and be convinced that what the Islamic State is doing is wrong on Islamic grounds. Most of it is just platitudes.

There is one scrap of a substantive argument when Maher Hathout says that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. Islamic State jihadis, however, would almost certainly respond that Foley was not innocent: he was an Infidel and a citizen of a state that the Islamic State has already announced it is at war with. The Islamic State has already warned that it would target American civilians; this would “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60). They can point to this hadith: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321) “They are from them” — i.e., the women and children of the polytheists are from the polytheists and can lawfully be killed.

Ironically, Hathout warns against people who quote Qur’an verses to show the Islamic State’s justification for their action. He says that people who quote the Qur’an in this way don’t understand the nuances of Arabic or Islam. He does not, however, quote a single Qur’an verse himself to show how the Islamic State is wrong. Nor does he give us any specific explanation of how the Islamic State or the “Islamophobes” who are supposedly all over the media are misquoting the Qur’an and misrepresenting Islam.

The other substantive point comes in a statement from Hamas-linked CAIR: “The Geneva Conventions, the Quran – Islam’s revealed text – and the traditions (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad all require that prisoners not be harmed in any way.” And yet a manual of Islamic has this:

As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, “When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [Islam] then strike [their] necks” (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4) (Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance).

Hamas-linked CAIR does not explain how Qur’an 47:4 does not justify the beheading of Infidels. Nor do they explain how al-Mawardi and other Islamic jurists got the idea that killing prisoners was an option permissible in Islam. And so here again, there is nothing in CAIR’s statement that would change the mind of a supporter of the Islamic State. And without that, these condemnations are worthless.

Note also that appearing in the MPAC video is Jamal Badawi, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case.

The U.S. gov’t is letting Islamist groups and their global propaganda machines determine who has ‘credibility.’

By Ryan Mauro:

Newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that personnel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, or, for the ease of our readers,“National Intel”) were well aware of the work of anti-Islamist Muslim activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, acknowledged that he was promoting the right message, but chose instead to favor and work with pro-Islamist groups.

As our previous expose showed, when five members of Congress specifically asked National Intel about their relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhoodentity, National Intel falsely told the congresspersons that it did not use Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals for outreach. However, files show that such a relationship existed.

When MPAC released its counter-terrorism study, Building Bridges to Strengthen America, National Intel was excited and receptive. Multiple emails were exchanged within National Intel to spread word of it. The office staff was invited to a MPAC briefing about it on April 8, 2010.

Then a two-hour meeting was arranged with MPAC’s Governmental Liaison on November 18, 2010.

Unfortunately, information about the Muslim Brotherhood in MPAC’s study is limited to this idea: “Conservative groups like the Muslim Brotherhood pose long-term strategic threats to violent extremists by siphoning Muslims away from violent radicalism into peaceful political activism.” [emphasis added]

The study also disputes the notion that the Brotherhood acts as a “conveyer belt” leading Islamists to engage in terrorism. Instead, MPAC presents the Brotherhood as a “conveyer belt” leading awayfrom violence. The footnote for the sentence references an article titled, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”

On October 25, 2011, MPAC announced that Building Bridges was cited in the National Intel’s National Counter-Terrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security policy document, “Countering Violent Extremism: Guidance and Best Practices.” It was the sole non-governmental organization source.

Noticeably, the language used by MPAC study about the Brotherhood is similar to the language used by Clapper in his January 2012 testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

During that testimony, Clapper stated: “Al-Qaeda probably will find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services and advocate religious values. Non-violent, pro-democracy demonstrations challenge Al-Qaeda’s violent jihadist ideology and might yield increased political power for secular or moderate Islamist parties.”

When reading Clapper’s testimony, it’s easy to see the parallels between his opinion and those of the pro-Brotherhood groups that were advising his office.

MPAC also used its relationship with National Intel to complain about materials that it felt promoted “Islamophobia.”

For example, on July 11, 2012, MPAC’s Young Leaders Government Summit delegates met with National Intel and National Counter-Terrorism Center staff, including Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Stephanie O’Sullivan, National Intel’s Civil Liberties Protection Officer Alexander Joel and Matthew Rice of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Directorate of Strategic Operational Planning.

At that meeting, MPAC’s delegates complained about National Intel’s counter-terrorism policy plan titled, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.”

The section they took issue with reads: “…communities—especially Muslim American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted for recruitment by Al-Qaeda—are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best.”

Virtually anyone reading this would view the statement as being pro-Muslim in nature. It states the factual problem — Al-Qaeda recruitment of Muslims — and says that Muslims are the solution. Further, it assumes that Muslims are also against Al Qaeda.

But for MPAC’s delegates, the mere acknowledgement that Al-Qaeda would like to recruit Muslim-Americans is offensive.

In a follow-up later on July 17, 2012, MPAC again criticized the policy plan because it “assumes that young American Muslims are susceptible to the threat” and that could cause their “marginalization.”

MPAC was also upset with a National Intel calendar that had photos of terrorists on it because it “disproportionately presented terrorists from Muslim majority countries. It also insinuated a problematic message: That only Muslims are terrorists.” The group warned of “unintended consequences” negatively affecting Muslims.

Two national Islamist organizations and other aligned Arab-American groups have hopped on the bandwagon to expunge references “Islamic” or “Islamist” from a film about al-Qaida which will be shown at the National September 11 Memorial Museum.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are among the groups which called the video “ill-considered and insufficiently vetted” in a letter to museum leadership.

The signatories demand that “stereotypical” elements in the film, “The Rise of Al-Qaeda,” be addressed and that they are allowed to view it. They also suggest that the film leads viewers to blame Islam as a whole the 9/11 attacks.

Members of a local New York interfaith panel who reviewed the film similarly slammed it, saying in an earlier letter to the museum’s director that it “may well leave viewers with the impression that all Muslims bear some collective guilt or responsibility for the actions of al-Qaeda.”

They also demanded that elements in the film discussing Islamic extremism be censored before the museum opens next month.

This marks CAIR’s latest censorship drive in the wake of its recent series of actionsintended to shut down debate over Islamic extremism. It pressured universities cancel screenings of the documentary “The Honor Diaries,” demanded that Brandeis cancel plans to grant an honorary doctorate to former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and were able to get ABC Family to cancel the show Alice in Arabia” before it was ever taped.

CAIR is not in the best position to preach about the connection between Islam and violence. U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis wrote in 2009 that there is “at least a prima facie (face value) case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.” Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, says in its own charter that it “draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.”

That includes a universal rejection of any peaceful settlement with Israel, because “renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion.”

Even if al-Qaida embraces a heterodox version of Islam, it is impossible to discuss its actions without using terms such as “Islamist,” “jihad” or religion even if CAIR or its allies find them offensive.

Discussing 9/11 in the absence of religion is akin to talking about the Crusades as having been solely driven by the Western European greed and a desire for plunder or talking about the Inquisition without religious references.

Americans deserve an open debate over Islamic extremism instead of censorship.

Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque.
– Salam Al-Marayati, president of the MPAC

Frank Gaffney recently wrote Unsafe Spaces: Islamist Mosques, highlighting what he described as the contempt Islamists have for the United States and the roles many American mosques have for Islamist jihadists. Coming on the 1st year anniversary of the Boston Bombing, Mr. Gaffney’s article notes the roll out of the “Safe Spaces Initiative“, a program being pushed by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The campaign/program’s premise: in order to keep America safe, the Muslim community needs to take a proactive approach to identify and intervene “individuals who may be susceptible to violent extremism.” At first glance, this seems, well … almost patriotic.

The about page of the program’s website continues with this highlight:

MPAC’s Safe Spaces Initiative seeks to help communities create spiritual safe spaces for open dialogue and debate while also providing physical safe spaces by helping mosque and community leaders deal with any misguided individuals.

… and the actual motivation behind the “Safe Spaces” reference begins to come into focus – to create “safe spaces for open dialogue and debate“. In other words, locations where Muslims can discuss matters without fear of being monitored by law enforcement, no matter the subject matter. As confirmation, here’s an excerpt from an article written by Salam Al-Marayati, president of the MPAC:

Safe spaces are created for everyone entering our mosques to be able to have difficult conversations. People need to feel comfortable discussing politics or persecution of Muslims in places such as Palestine or Kashmir or drone attacks that harm the innocent in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque. In essence, we want to enhance both a spiritual safety and public safety.

To further understand the impetus behind the campaign, we just need to look at the agendas of the supporters. The Safe Spaces website includes several videos, the first of which is titled, “Online Radicalization: Myths and Realities” (2013) featuring:

Mohamed Elibiary – Founder of Lone Star Intelligence, LLC and listed as a Senior Fellow with the Homeland Security Advisory Council. He was named in a PJ Media story by Patrick Poole for leaking sensitive intelligence reports to the media to push an islamaphobia story to the media. The Dallas Morning News reported that in a letter, Elibiary defended the very anti-American and early Muslim Brotherhood leader/Islamic theorist Sayyid Qutb, stating: “I’d recommend everyone read Qutb, but read him with an eye to improving America not just to be jealous with malice in our hearts.”

Imam Suhaib Webb – currently with the Boston Islamic Society, Webb has very strong ties with the Muslim American Society (MAS)

Rashad Hussein – appointed U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation by President Obama, he has past ties with a number of MB organizations and called the prosecution of terrorist financier Sami Al-Arian as being politically motivated. He was one of six people named in a December 22, 2012 Egyptian magazine article that were Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy. The article also named Mohammed Elibiary.

Dr. Maher Hathout – founder and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and co-founded the Islamic Center of Southern California. His public statements have included support for Hezbollah terrorist acts. He is also reported to be a member of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California (ISCSC), a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood. This 2010 video shows CA Law Enforcement officials giving tribute to the ISCSC

Iman Mohamed Magid – President of the Islamic Society of North America, and Executive Director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS). He was appointed in 2011 by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. According to a 2012 PJ Media article by Patrick Poole, “Mohamed Magid is the Obama administration’s go-to guy for Muslim outreach and advise on international affairs and counterterrorism. ” Magid was also instrumental in having DHS erase from the “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum, any suggestion that Muslim terrorism drew its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam.

Iman Zaid Shakirs- A frequent speaker at CAIR,ISNA and MSA events. According to a report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Shakirs, “… defends terrorist groups such as Hizballah and hopes for a day in which America is a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law” and he suggests that Zionists and the FBI were behind the 1993 Trade Center bombings.

Jamal Badawi – asnoted by the GMBDW, Badawi is the leader in many of the most important Global Muslim Brotherhood organizations. A founding member of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a 2004 Chicago Tribune story identified MAS as the Brotherhood’s U.S. organization.

*in watching this video, take note of the focus of Muslim “victimization”, especially after the 41 min mark.

The author of the “Safe Spaces Tool Kit” is Alejandro J. Beutel – the lead face in MPAC’s organized effort to move U.S. law enforcement towards a community oriented policing model that effectively allows the Muslim community to control the direction taken. Mr. Beutel was a critic of theNYPD surveillance program that targeted New York City area mosques – the program was stopped this month.

In addition to working with MPAC, Mr. Beutel’s work history includes the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) and he was a junior fellow with the Minaret of Freedom Institute. ISPU is basically a Muslim special interest group. According to the GMBDW, “The Minaret of Freedom Institute [is] a lesser known group tied to the U.S Brotherhood and whose leadership includes Omar Altalib, likely a relative of Hisham Altalib, one of the original leaders of IIIT and the SAAR Foundation“.

“… outline a “blueprint” for how Muslim American communities – from a Muslim American perspective – can be an asset to national security. At the same time, this report also provides practical recommendations for law enforcement to uphold civil liberties while maintaining their effectiveness.”

In November 2010, Marylin Stern published a report analyzing “Building Bridges” and MPAC’s related efforts,calling them a “Trojan horse” with a goal to negatively influence U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies operations. Her report reads:

Like the Trojan horse of ancient Troy, MPAC provides cover for jihadists by obscuring the subversive agenda of Islamists like Maher Hathout, Salam al-Marayati, ISNA and CAIR. Upon closer examination, research supports the thesis that contrary to MPAC’s claim to uphold civil liberties, MPAC has exhibited a consistent hostility towards U.S. law enforcement to undermine effective counterterrorism initiatives by placing themselves between the Muslim community and law enforcement. Examples in this research paper have been supported by objective documentation, historical facts, and quotations from original sources to support the following:

1. MPAC’s deceptive propaganda as a civil liberties organization is a facade to subvert U.S. law enforcement in order to further the global Muslim Brotherhood goals to destroy the West from within.

2. MPAC is waging an influence operation to infiltrate and subvert U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies as evidenced by their self-designation as the only voice for the Muslim community.

3. Law enforcement needs to be better educated and informed of the historical philosophy, tactics and strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood in America in order to establish benchmarks identifying and marginalizing front group operations. MPAC’s report, Building Bridges to Strengthen America, Forging an Effective Counterterrorism Enterprise between Muslim Americans & Law Enforcement, does not support MPAC’s claim to be a “trusted resource for decision makers in government, media and policy institutions.” Law enforcement should carry out due diligence before “going a bridge too far.”

Now four years later, The Safe Spaces initiative expands on MPAC’s “Building Bridges” adding several dangerous concepts:

A system where the mosque/Muslim community makes the determination of threat levels and when law enforcement is allowed to be involved.

Establishing a Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with the local community for special handling of Muslims (report page 75)

Providing for an area that is off-limits to law enforcement unless the Muslim community grants permission (report page 47)

A year ago we made mention in “Boston Bombing: cue smoke and mirrors” that Muslim special interest groups would be using the Boston attack to their benefit, pointing out how following the 9/11/2001 attacks, “Muslim activists earned influential positions on advisory boards at Justice and other government agencies promoting “sensitivity” based initiatives that gutted many anti-terror programs.“

It’s said that you wouldn’t want to wish serious illness on your worst enemy. Well, in December 2010, such an illness did indeed come to one of America’s worst enemies, Muslim extremist Mahdi Bray. Bray, then-Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, the former activist arm of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front, the Muslim American Society, suffered what was described as a “massive stroke.” Now, three years later, he is back doing what he does best, embracing hatemongers and getting involved in the pro-terror cause.

Johari Abdul-Malik is the Outreach Director of Falls Church, Virginia’s Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center. He was brought in to head the mosque, after his predecessor, Anwar al-Awlaki, left the United States to become al-Qaeda’s leader in Yemen. Since Abdul-Malik has been employed by al-Hijrah, he has supported and/or defended a number of convicted terrorists, including one that plotted to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah; one that plotted to assassinate President George W. Bush; and one who instructed his followers to wage war on the United States.

Abdul-Malik has a YouTube page, where he actively uploads videos. On September 25, he uploaded a 28-second one featuring himself and the Executive Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Salam al-Marayati. Marayati, who is close to the Obama White House, is a defender of Hezbollah and has previously suggested that Israel be named a suspect in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

However, the main event of Abdul-Malik’s video short was Mahdi Bray and Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI), hugging and professing their love for one another.

Farrakhan is known for his inflammatory rhetoric against whites, Jews and homosexuals. He has called whites “potential humans [who] haven’t evolved yet.” He has referred to Jews as “satanic” and “wicked.” And he has called gays “degenerate.” Farrakhan’s group currently publishes a number of anti-Semitic books and DVDs for sale on its website, including such titles as ‘And the Jews Planned’ and ‘Jews Selling Blacks.’

The scene from the video is not the first time Bray has embraced such a vile individual as Farrakhan. In March 2009, a photo of Ahmed Yassin, the former spiritual leader and founder of Hamas who was killed in an Israeli airstrike, was uploaded to Bray’s personal web page found on what used to be a MAS Freedom website. [The MAS Freedom organization was shut down shortly after Bray’s stroke.]

The Muslim American Society was founded in 1992 by associates from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Mohammed Mahdi Akef, who would later become the international head of the Brotherhood. Given the radical roots of the organization, it stands to reason that Bray would cling to such extremism – as he did last month, when he attended an event sponsored by a group advocating for the restoration of the regime of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. Morsi was taken from power by the Egyptian Military, which has since outlawed the Brotherhood, designating the Islamist group a terrorist organization.

As reported by Steve Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), also attending was ex-USF professor Sami al-Arian, who previously had been sentenced to prison for his role as a North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and is currently under a separate indictment for criminal contempt in another terrorism case.